Nevada bill would protect Civil Air Patrol volunteers’ employment during training and missions

Assembly Member Steve Yeager on Tuesday introduced Assembly Bill 422 to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, proposing job protections for volunteers who serve in the Civil Air Patrol (CAP).

The bill would allow a CAP volunteer to take up to 10 days of leave for training and up to 30 days for emergency mission work “without losing their position, seniority, or accrued leave or benefits,” Yeager said. Employers could require documentation and, if they choose, treat the leave as unpaid, the bill text says.

The measure is aimed at ensuring volunteers can respond to searches, disaster missions and training without fearing workplace repercussions. “The bill seeks to ensure that civil air patrol volunteers don't have to perform their volunteer services, while being worried about repercussions at their regular job,” Yeager said.

Lieutenant Colonel Brad Spires, Civil Air Patrol Nevada government affairs officer, described typical search-and-rescue mobilization timelines and the need for rapid availability. “We try to be airborne within 2 hours of being notified,” Spires said, describing missions that begin with late-night notifications and flyouts the next morning. He told the committee that CAP provides search-and-rescue, damage photography for FEMA and other support roles and asked members to add “disaster relief” to the measure as a friendly amendment so the protections cover a wider set of missions.

Committee counsel Sarah Dilap explained the bill's structure during questions. She said one subsection applies “except as otherwise provided” in the following subsection, and read the bill as meaning an employer “shall not prohibit an employee from participating” in CAP-related search-and-rescue activities when the employee meets the section 1 requirements. Multiple members asked for a clearer reading on how subsection 2 interacts with subsection 3; Yeager pledged to consult legal staff and provide a committee clarification.

Members raised additional questions about the bill's mechanics. Assembly Member Flanagan said the interaction of the notice and prohibition language was confusing; Assembly Member Kasama asked why the protection had not been adopted in prior years and recommended adding disaster relief to the relevant subsections; Assembly Member Hunt asked whether the bill limits how many employees from a single workplace can take leave at the same time — the bill contains no such limit and witnesses said large simultaneous absences are unlikely given the small number of CAP-qualified aircrew.

No members of the public testified on AB 422 during the hearing and the committee did not take a formal vote. Yeager said he would work with counsel to clarify the subsection language and incorporate the friendly amendment to add disaster relief.

The bill would not create a mandatory paid leave requirement; it preserves employers’ option to treat the leave as unpaid while providing a private civil remedy if an employer fails to accommodate the statutory protections.

The committee moved on to other business after closing the hearing on AB 422.

Ending: The sponsor pledged to return committee guidance on statutory interpretation and to incorporate the disaster-relief language; no committee vote was recorded on the measure at Tuesday’s hearing.